Why was dex made so powerful?

[Unoriginal]

The problem is that all other systems in D&D did not use this and therefore, Dex has become this OP stat that in most cases mean you cannot ignore.

Except it did not become "this OP stat", actually.

[thereaper]

Dex is certainly incredible at what it does, and for many builds it becomes almost pointless to use strength instead of just dexterity (I ran into this when trying to make a Valor Bard build that was also decent at Rogue-type skills).

But Str also has its advantages. Specifically, two-handed weapons.

[Unoriginal]

Dex is certainly incredible at what it does, and for many builds it becomes almost pointless to use strength instead of just dexterity (I ran into this when trying to make a Valor Bard build that was also decent at Rogue-type skills).

...dexterity is incredible at what it does because it's the only thing that do what it does?

Or are you talking about using Dex in combat?

[qube]

I see no one here who has any verifiable relevant experience. Unless someone is willing to out their real personage and show their body of experience (at medieval bow archery), it's just one internet person's word. That or give me references, name some books I should be reading (I will do so, if widely available).

Considering I used my "expertise" to note

Secondly, considering I have actually shot many different bow of various poundage, and pull out even more arrows out of targets - allow me to humbly disagree that it would be absured that there's a correlation between draw strength and damage. I sure as heck could feel the difference between a bow shot by a normal newbie bow (what I presume would be 10 str) and the guys with the heaviest bows (which I would presume to be 14-16 str; we're not talking about Dwane Thhe Rock Johnsons here)

If you're willing to go to great lengths of reading a book, you could brush up on your physics, or you could instead just visit a local archery club.

Or, some physics calculation I did myself, if you're too laisy to do the research:

Spoiler

Show

With kinetic energy being, mv²/2, turned into the units used for bows, that is Fps² * (Weight of Arrow) / 450,240 = Arrow’s Kinetic Energy. Not that the specific numbers matters much, but it just shows KE ~ Fps²

Now, what does this to draw weight? you gain about 1 1/4 fps per # draw weight,

And how does this abstract thing of "draw weight" relate to strength? using some shop to see what they advise on people using:

Small child 50-70 lbs Child 70-100 lbs Most women, boys from 100 - 130 lbs Women above average strength; youth boys 130 - 150 lbs Most men 150-180 lbs Target Most men 150-180 lbs Bowhunting or 3D Muscular young men and larger men 180 lbs and up

10-15 lbs 15-25 lbs 30-40 lbs 40-50 lbs 40-55 lbs 50-65 lbs 60-70 lbs

(I've bolded what I would categorise as 10 to 16)

OK, OK, but what about the base fps? Apparently medival longbow's were about 68 lb and 133.7 fps , it's simple maths from here on out: (using Ñ as unit proportionally to Newton)

the dude of STR16 gets a short of 133.7² = 18K Ñ ,
the dude of STR10 gets a shot of (133.7- (30*1.25) )² = 96.2² = 9K Ñ

Conclusion: a 6 point difference in strength creates an arrow 2 times stronger

edit: maths error 30-40 & 60-70 differ 30, not 40.

It might help if you stop using synonyms for the English word dexterity. Not And start thinking in terms of the D&D ability score Dexterity.

Okidoki. To quote PHB.

Strength
Strength measures bodily training, athleric training and the extend to which you can exert raw physical force.

Dexterity
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes and balance.

I still stand by what I said: There's a solid case to be made that using "bodily training, athleric training and the extend to which you can exert raw physical force" is a better way to model archery than "agility, reflexes and balance" - considering you want to put your 'cross-aim' on the exact spot with tense mussles but without tremmor; and stronger bow shoot faster arrows*, which are thus harder to dodge.

*: the above calc would point out a 6 point strength difference gives an around about 40% faster (133.7 / 96.2 = 1.4)

[Cybren]

On a side note, in 4e, you could use Dex or Int to boost your AC if you wore light armor as this implied you were smart enough to react ahead of time. 4e also had 3 other defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) that could be boosted by 1 of 2 stats. For example, Fortitude could be boosted by Strength or Constitution.

The problem is that all other systems in D&D did not use this and therefore, Dex has become this OP stat that in most cases mean you cannot ignore. When you have choices, you can have variety and better RP.

That's not a paradigm without its flaws. The representational value of both the defenses and the ability scores is diminished the more abstract they become

[strangebloke]

Considering I used my "expertise" to note

His point was that, as a dude in the internet, your expertise could be anything or nothing. People on the internet have been known to be dishonest.

Not that I disagree with your general point. Archery is so physically demanding that uncovered skeletons of longbowmen have massively warped shoulder blades to the incredible force exerted on them during archery.

But this is a setting where running in a straight line is no faster than running in circles. Homebrew the text for dexterity in the PHB to include ', forearm, back, and core strength' and call it a day. Acrobatics should request strength as well.

[Talamare]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back

[robbie374]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back

I think that is a bigger problem of which this Dex issue is a symptom. Why aren't all the ability scores necessary for all characters? Clearly no character can be great at everything, but the concept of a dump stat should not exist. The choice to sacrifice one stat for another should be a choice that has significant consequences regardless of your class.

Now, having a party of characters with different strengths is great, and should be the way to address weak stats, but there should still be consequences for choices. As it is most characters can completely ignore two or more stats with only minimal inconvenience.

[Naanomi]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back

I disagree, it made INT important for characters that chose to make it important by selecting it. 4e still had dump stats, you just had more freedom to choose what they were (at a loss of differentiation between the stats to begin with). Neither is better in my mind, but it is disingenuous saying that 4es system made INT important for most characters

[Tanarii]

Okidoki. To quote PHB.

Strength
Strength measures bodily training, athleric training and the extend to which you can exert raw physical force.

Dexterity
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes and balance.

Better. And a good counter to those that like to argue that Dex is 'wiry strength'.

[Willie the Duck]

His point was that, as a dude in the internet, your expertise could be anything or nothing. People on the internet have been known to be dishonest.

Okay, that was clear. Good. The point is that we have no method to verify the personal experience.

Considering I used my "expertise" to note...

If you're willing to go to great lengths of reading a book, you could brush up on your physics, or you could instead just visit a local archery club...

Or, some physics calculation I did myself, if you're too laisy to do the research:

I am going to assume that you did take offense. The entire point was that we know nothing of each other personally, so I am sorry that you took it personally.

I'm not going to rise to those jibes. I believe you would not have made them had you not interpreted my statements as an attack.

However, I will point out one thing about the model. So far as I can tell, we're not talking about how many feet per second the arrow launches at, but about hitting and downing an opponent. That is going to take into account multiple factors, some of which launch speed/penetrating power might be less useful than stopping power or even diametrically opposed (much like the elephant gun/cop killer bullet dichotomy).

With that regard, I'm absolutely sure we do not have an expert in the room. I don't even know what it would take--I guess a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds? Maybe something else. Definitely a unique skillset.

The closest I'd expect here might be a cop or deer hunter. Any of those around?

[qube]

I am going to assume that you did take offense. The entire point was that we know nothing of each other personally, so I am sorry that you took it personally.

...

With that regard, I'm absolutely sure we do not have an expert in the room. I don't even know what it would take--I guess a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds? Maybe something else. Definitely a unique skillset.

I have no clue why you think I take it personally. you are in fact right. We don't know each other. The fastest & cheapest way to understand bows is to visit a archery club (oppôsite to spending hours and hours reading a book about it), or learn how to calculate kinetic energy yourself.

The thing is though, this is all basic stuff. It comes close to only wanting to accept 1+1=2, if it's told to you by a professor with multiple degrees in mathematics. You need to be a medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds or else you don't know enough about bows? Sorry mate - but there seems to be an issue with your bar-setting system.

(FYI: considering bullets work nothing like arrows, I'm not sure a cop will be able to help you ... )

However, I will point out one thing about the model. So far as I can tell, we're not talking about how many feet per second the arrow launches at, but about hitting and downing an opponent. That is going to take into account multiple factors, some of which launch speed/penetrating power might be less useful than stopping power or even diametrically opposed (much like the elephant gun/cop killer bullet dichotomy).

Oh, so ... like this? Which draw weight should one use:

deer, elk, turkey grizzly bear, ox, cape bufalo target shooting

40 lbs. draw weight or more 55 lbs. or more any

I would also like to note on that that in certain States and counties, bow hunting has a minimum draw weight (most of the time 40 lb).


Considering they reccomend stronger bows for animals in D&D that typically have more hp ... would that be sufficient correlation?

[Zalabim]

The issue you run into with this comparison is that the stronger person in real life doesn't use the same bow as the weaker person in real life. In D&D, everyone is using the same bows, so different levels of strength aren't going to have different effects, because the effect comes from the bow. Down that path lies 3.x's Composite Bows with different strength ratings.

[qube]

The issue you run into with this comparison is that the stronger person in real life doesn't use the same bow as the weaker person in real life. In D&D, everyone is using the same bows, so different levels of strength aren't going to have different effects, because the effect comes from the bow.

That is assuming everyone uses the weakest bow humanly koboldly possible ... Why woul a mighy race of centaurs craft militairy bows (not child toys), that have a draw poundage of {6 strength score} ?

Now, you're ting in that a kobold and a centaur (?*) would be able to use a kobold bow with same efficiency (a.k.a. same bow, different efficiency)
... but a kobold wouldn't be able to draw a centaur bow like a centaur could (a.k.a. same bow, different efficiency).

*: too laisy to check out 5E centaurs. I just recall from ye old days they had +8 strength. Just pick any race that uses medium weapons with massive strenght

Other then this, I already adressed how you can increase the poundage of a bow by twisting (and thus shortening) the string**. IRL it's not a miracle solution (in the end, the bow's shape & substance(prob. wood) must be able to handle the pressure) but if you considering in-game bowmen always have their bow strung, I think this RL limitation can be hand-waved away.

(** technically you decrease the draw length, but the further you draw, the harder it becomes (requiring more strength), and the more energy will be transferred into the arrow ... so basically the same thing as higher draw poundage)

[Waazraath]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back

Huh? Suggesting that Int was 'no longer the most garbage stat' in 4e implies that it was in 3rd. Which is really weird, because in 3rd, you int score defined the number of skills you had. And there were a lot of very usefull skills in 3rd, and the number was much higher than in 5e. If third had dump stats, it was Cha and (for casters) Str.

[smcmike]

Huh? Suggesting that Int was 'no longer the most garbage stat' in 4e implies that it was in 3rd. Which is really weird, because in 3rd, you int score defined the number of skills you had. And there were a lot of very usefull skills in 3rd, and the number was much higher than in 5e. If third had dump stats, it was Cha and (for casters) Str.

Accurate, though big dumb fighters could dump INT, so long as they weren't trying to follow the combat expertise chain.

[Willie the Duck]

I have no clue why you think I take it personally.

What I saw as some very snide and condescending responses that would make sense if you were being defensive. If that is how you respond when you haven't taken offense... well I guess no skin off my nose, so let's move on.

You need to be a medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds or else you don't know enough about bows? Sorry mate - but there seems to be an issue with your bar-setting system.

The primary point is that I do not trust a stranger on a D&D site who says that they are an expert is weapons (or armor, or martial arts), because of a consistent pattern of over the years seeing (and this is another exaggeration example for effect, like the 'd20 katana' link) guys with 3 years of karate classes claiming to be martial arts experts. Therefore, I am looking for a referenceable, outside source. Sure, a professor, or bow-hunting magazine, health reports on impaling injuries, documentaries, the point is being able to point to it and say, 'you don't have to take my word for it, look.'

(FYI: considering bullets work nothing like arrows, I'm not sure a cop will be able to help you ... )

That was indeed grasping at straws. There just aren't that many people with experience in using a bow to actually drop a living target (which is why I've mentioned hunters).

Oh, so ... like this?

Yes, Perfect!

Considering they reccomend stronger bows for animals in D&D that typically have more hp ... would that be sufficient correlation?

Probably... and here's where we'd have to insert a whole "what do hp represent" discussion into the middle of this one. It certainly draws correlation between draw weight and something akin to what I'll make up a term and call Dropping Power. Making what you are shooting eventually bleed out. Actually, now that I look at it, the elk and deer (who are closer to beers than they are to turkeys) are in the low-weight category, presumably because you don't mind if they take a while to die (unlike a bear). So more like stopping power (something close to how I imagine hp).

What it doesn't do, is tell us how much of the total-stopping-power is contributed by draw-weight/strength, and how much is hitting the right part of the beast. So whether it is sufficient probably depends on what question each thread reader really wants answered. Does real-world (lower case) strength have a positive impact on an archer's ability to drop an opponent? Undoubtedly. What is the strength/coordination admixture? Unknown. Does it matter for D&D? Doubt there's a consensus.

[smcmike]

What it doesn't do, is tell us how much of the total-stopping-power is contributed by draw-weight/strength, and how much is hitting the right part of the beast.

This question also brings up the difference between high fantasy and realism. Does killing Smaug require a unrealistically high-powered bow, or unrealistically precise aim at a weak point? Either way, you aren't going to be able to model it with a few archer using a real bow, right?

[Talderas]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.

I am currently playing a Halfling barbarian pir... er sailor using the sealord UA path. My rolls, DM had us roll rather than point buy, gave me a 15, two 14s, a 13, a 11, and a 10. Given those starting stats it was impossible for me to start with anything higher than a +2 modifier for strength. I allocated my stats as 14 str, 14 dex, 15 con, 10 int, 11 wis, and 13 cha which racial adjustments brought me up to 16 dex and con.

In practice, increasing dex provide me less net benefit than increasing str or constitution. A lot of this has to do with unarmored defense, danger sense, and later advantage to initiative which greatly depresses the value of gaining a +1 dex modifier leaving mostly a +1 to stealth checks as the main benefit that my class doesn't encroach on. Swapping to a finesse weapon style isn't that advantageous. Right now I have a +1 advantage on attack rolls but a -1 disadvantage on damage rolls (can't get rage damage bonus with finesse weapons). That attack bonus advantage is greatly offset by reckless attack. The amount of advantage rolls barbarian gets in dex based benefits does help to devalue the benefit of increasing dex over str. I also need to wrap back around to the fact that I'm playing a Halfling and how the Lucky trait behaves with advantage rolls. While you can't reroll both ones on an advantage roll if you get doubles you do get to roll one of them. That nets an increase in success rate when rolling with advantage.

My first ASI I went ahead an increased constitution by 2 since it gave me +1 AC, +1 to con saves, +1 to the DC of my path ability, and +4 hit points. It's the only stat increase that provided me with clear direct offensive and defensive increases. The others provide clear offensive or defense benefits. If I went with dexterity I would have gotten +1 AC, +1 to dex saves/stealth checks, +1 initiative, and +2 to attack rolls if I swapped with finesse weapons. If I had elected for strength it would have saw me with +1 attack rolls, +1 damage, and +1 to str saves/checks.

I play my barbarian with a little more fluidity in weapon style and a lot of it is influenced because I'm not a bear totem barbarian although in practice I haven't seen damage sources that I'm not resistant to in a rage, longsword+shield, longsword two-handed, or longsword and handaxe.

[Spookykid]

I do consider myself a semi-expert, knight archer in adrian empire, build bows and arrows.

If you talking a grizzly, which people thought was insane to take down with a bow, its totally placement but you still have to get through the hide and into vital organs. Once your bow hits a certain poundage and can penetrate, everything else is bonus.

good archery resource https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/

[qube]

Does real-world (lower case) strength have a positive impact on an archer's ability to drop an opponent? Undoubtedly.

And that's what I was saying ... Perhaps you can understand now why I came of as snarky when people claim only a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds could credibly make such statements?

> Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

I am currently playing a Halfling barbarian

I'm not sure barbarian is the best example. Considering rage only works on strength; it would be like using rogues as example why DEX is a superior stat. The comparision is in a void, with no {stat-only} class features

[Ixidor92]

Just speaking from personal experience, I don't feel like dex is an overpowered stat at all in this edition. Now granted, I'm coming from a background primarily in 3.5, but what they did was allow a player who wants a dex-based character to do so without needing to plan out their character build extensively. Apart from myself, most of my friends enjoy d&d on a fairly casual level, so when someone wants to play a dex-based character in 3.5 I need to work with them either through butt-tons of magic items that are tailored to them, or sit in and help them with their build, which neither of us particularly enjoys. In 5e, that's no longer a concern. You only have to worry about what weapons and armor your character can use effectively, which is true for every character. In the specific example given (dex fighter with rapier vs str fighter with longsword) yes the dex fighter looks like they have a slight advantage, but that doesn't account for what types of monsters they'll be fighting in the regular adventuring career, or what environments they'll be fighting in. Ultimately I'm glad for the change, since now my players can just make the cool characters they want to and we don't have to sit down for an hour-long session of how they'll be effective with the other party members.

[Willie the Duck]

And that's what I was saying ... Perhaps you can understand now why I came of as snarky when people claim only a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds could credibly make such statements?

So you did take offense? And this is not your standard, completely situation-neutral behavior? That is actually very reassuring. Thank you for clarifying.

Okay, well, again, I will simply reiterate my point that I wanted, for my own threshold of being convinced, some external linkage to be pointed to that we could check out. I did specify hunter as an option, in the surgeon-referencing passage where I stated that just foot-per-second calculations didn't tell us enough--and what you have brought forth after that statement is externally verifiable hunting information. From my perspective, this case can be simplified to:
P1: I posit this, based on my experience.
P2: I as a policy don't trust claims made on forums, can you reference a source? We're talking about dropping from wounds, not just archery, so I would think it should be something in the realm of x,y,z
P1: You mean like this <z-related reference>?
P2: Yes, excellent!
And scene!

I'm not sure barbarian is the best example. Considering rage only works on strength; it would be like using rogues as example why DEX is a superior stat. The comparision is in a void, with no {stat-only} class features

Agreed. Seems like rogue, fighter, fighter-rogue, and paladin would be the intuitive choices. Although, if you can make a dex-based barbarian work, that would be a pretty compelling anecdote in favor of dex! Talderas's case seems more like making the best of a rough situation (starting with <16 in your combat stat as a martial class).

[Willie the Duck]

I'm coming from a background primarily in 3.5, but what they did was allow a player who wants a dex-based character to do so without needing to plan out their character build extensively. Apart from myself, most of my friends enjoy d&d on a fairly casual level, so when someone wants to play a dex-based character in 3.5 I need to work with them either through butt-tons of magic items that are tailored to them, or sit in and help them with their build, which neither of us particularly enjoys.

Without hearing from the developers, that seems to me like the most likely reasons why they made the shift to automatic finesse for appropriate weapons and dex damage with ranged weapons (and strength to attack with thrown weapons is probably a compensatory thing). From a gamist perspective, it is at least in theory great that any given combat class only needs 1 of Dex or Str to fight, given that any given spellcaster (excluding multiclass) will only need one stat as their attack/enemy-save modifier.

[Ixidor92]

Without hearing from the developers, that seems to me like the most likely reasons why they made the shift to automatic finesse for appropriate weapons and dex damage with ranged weapons (and strength to attack with thrown weapons is probably a compensatory thing). From a gamist perspective, it is at least in theory great that any given combat class only needs 1 of Dex or Str to fight, given that any given spellcaster (excluding multiclass) will only need one stat as their attack/enemy-save modifier.

That would be my guess too. At the end of the day, even if dexterity were objectively more powerful in most situations than strength (which I don't think it is) the important question is does a strength based character in a game feel inferior to a dex based character in the same game, and I haven't seen evidence of that in the 5e games that I've played.

[Tanarii]

Without hearing from the developers, that seems to me like the most likely reasons why they made the shift to automatic finesse for appropriate weapons and dex damage with ranged weapons (and strength to attack with thrown weapons is probably a compensatory thing). From a gamist perspective, it is at least in theory great that any given combat class only needs 1 of Dex or Str to fight, given that any given spellcaster (excluding multiclass) will only need one stat as their attack/enemy-save modifier.

THAC0 / BAB was primarily driven by your class & level in Classic/AD&D/3e. Having a high Str or Dex could provide a high relative bonus at low levels, but as you gained levels it rapidly became a fairly small part of your chance to hit.

To 'to hit' / Save DC are (very roughly) derived 1/2 from proficiency and half from ability score mod in 5e. That makes having your primary or secondary apply to your classes main method of attack a necessity.

In short, if Rogues and Monks were going to be able to make Melee attacks, along with allowing it as an option for some classes that make them as secondary attacks, either they each needed special feature like Martial Arts, or there needed to be some generic limited way to use Dex for Melee attacks.

I just wish they'd thought through the Rapier before giving it the same one-handed damage as Str one handed weapons.

[Talamare]

I think that is a bigger problem of which this Dex issue is a symptom. Why aren't all the ability scores necessary for all characters? Clearly no character can be great at everything, but the concept of a dump stat should not exist. The choice to sacrifice one stat for another should be a choice that has significant consequences regardless of your class.

Now, having a party of characters with different strengths is great, and should be the way to address weak stats, but there should still be consequences for choices. As it is most characters can completely ignore two or more stats with only minimal inconvenience.

I feel like I 80% agree with this.

The core system is kinda of poorly designed in that they basically added stats without consideration to what the stats do.
WoW and many MMOs had similar problems with time. While initially all stats provided some small benefit, it caused too many issues with stupid/greedy players getting the wrong stats for their class.

I worry that at this point DnD is too set in stone to purge stats or completely revamp the system.

Let's use some more Video Game examples...
Elders Scrolls basically threw away their core Stat System in favor of emphasizing their Skill bases system
Fallout still has their SPECIAL system, but its considered by many by far one of the most awkward systems around. All stats are important... and All stats are garbage... depending on how you play.


I don't know, let's go on a tangent for a moment.
I think having stats completely removed is a bad idea. I understand the arguments for it "then you're 100% free to roleplay 100% freely". Which is kinda of true, but there is also the problem in that if you're told to imagine absolutely anything without limitations you end up not imagining very much. So I feel stats provide a guide to be able to imagine even more creative things.

So you do need stats and you need for them to matter.

=========
I want to talk about the Firefly RPG system for a little bit that involves only 3 core stats, Mental, Physical, Social. You only really have 3 levels for each one. Good, Neutral, Bad. The difference being a d6, d8, or d10. The thing about it is that this isn't actually enough to succeed at anything. Then there are dozens of substats like Piloting, Shooting, Survival, Craft... etc... That are analogous to skills in DnD. Except unlike Skill these affect EVERYTHING you can do, as well as unlike the current Skill System in DnD that is binary Trained or Not Trained. They each have several levels of "training", depending on your specific character. So, I could have a d8 for Crafting, a d4 for Shooting, a d10 for Melee Combat... etc

Depending on the situation a roll could use any combinations of the 2. So if you're teaching someone how to fix an engine you might use Craft & Social. If you're attempting to shoot rope that will drop a chandelier on someone; you might roll Mental and Shoot.

Oh, as well as the system is designed to scale the punishment and reward. If you fail by a small margin the punishment for failure will be small. Hell, it might even still be successful. but with alternative consequences. As well as if you succeed with a large margin, you basically get affected by a 'Bard Inspiration' type dice.

The major downside to the Firefly RP system is that while the RP system is fairly rewarding... the Combat in this system is pretty pathetic. There is no real tactical gameplay. Not to mention it's always at the mercy of die rolls.
==========
I'm also reminded of a simple game on Steam called Punch Club, it also uses 3 core stats. The core stat themselves affect everything your character does which is cool. So there is no core dump stat... but this game is a bright star in how to basically do skills wrong.

Example, if you focus strength your abilities do a ton of damage but cost a ton of energy... So they made a bunch of Strength based skills have special effects to make them cost less energy.
if you focuses stamina, you would have a ton of energy but low damage; the goal is to outlast your oppoent... So they made Stamina skills cost a ton of energy, and deal much higher base damage.

Basically, if you focused a stat to have a unique fighting style. Then the unique moves you would unlock for doing so... basically cancelled your strengths and fixed your weaknesses. Meaning in the end, despite everyone having vastly different builds... Everyone fought exactly 100% the same.
===========

I'ma stop ranting for now, I'll rant more later

[rigolgm]

DEX is clearly better than STR, even for most combat classes.

I think a big problem is how little DMs/players bother with encumberance/lifting considerations. Lifting capacity is the only thing that brings STR even close to DEX in terms of efficiency.

Unless you're only using the basic encumberance rules, a simple 'explorers pack' alone contains so much equipment that it's almost heavy enough to impose a 'minus 10' movement penalty on a player with STR10.

I bet there are a lot of PCs out there (especially those legions of STR10, DEX20 Fighters and Rangers etc) who probably should be receiving that penalty.

I know it's DM discretion and optional, but I think it's balanced and good for roleplaying (get a mule! don't be tooled-up like a battleship!).

[KorvinStarmast]

I think a big problem is how little DMs/players bother with encumbrance/lifting considerations. Lifting capacity is the only thing that brings STR even close to DEX in terms of efficiency.

Unless you're only using the basic encumbrance rules, a simple 'explorers pack' alone contains so much equipment that it's almost heavy enough to impose a 'minus 10' movement penalty on a player with STR 10.

Yep. In our games, encumbrance rules are in play.

[mephnick]

Also idiot DMs allowing Acrobatics to replace Athletics for climbing and other things because they've watched too much anime. Athletics should be the most important skill in the game if you're actually adventuring.